I would say pacified instead of hopeless.
All power in the real world comes from violence. This is increasingly a taboo to say but when you think about it, it becomes obvious. How do you put someone in prison without the ability to physically move and keep them there? You don't. That's why the state employs violence to do it.
(1) In fact, the state's capacity for violence is so large that very few people even think about challenging it. (2) And it's so certain (meaning predictable - the state has detailed rulebooks about its use called laws) that most people accept it as just a fact of life, a kind of background noise they filter out.
(The logical conclusion of the 2 statements is that the violence does not end up used physically but its threat is sufficient, thus reinforcing statement (2). I still consider this a use of violence, implied or physical makes no difference.)
Now, the problem is how to punish the state when it misbehaves.
According to the state's rules, you are supposed to use mechanisms of the state (lawsuits, courts, etc.) and let the state do the enforcement (use violence against its members or itself). But the state, like any other organization protects itself it its primary goal and its members as its secondary goal.
The alternative (DIY enforcement) is an obvious second choice. This fact is not lost on the state which makes every attempt to make it a taboo. Notice how often people self-censor words like "kill" on the internet these days? Partially it's a cultural export of a certain dictatorship but western democracies are not far behind.
Funny thing is citizens of those democracies being able to hold two contradictory thoughts at the same time.
1) (the general case) You are not supposed to enforce justice yourself, you should leave it to the state.
2) (specific instances) Many of them will cheer highly publicized cases where they can feel empathy with the characters such as the punishment Gary Plauché enforced upon his son's rapist.